Storyblok MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'move' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is atomic or batched, error handling for invalid IDs, or effects on asset metadata. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Move multiple assets') and specifies the target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., idempotency, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies multiple assets, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'ids' and 'asset_folder_id'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'ids' are for 'multiple assets' and 'asset_folder_id' is the 'specified folder'. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('move') and resources ('multiple assets'), specifying the destination ('to a specified folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulk_delete_stories' or 'bulk_restore_assets' by focusing on relocation rather than deletion or restoration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_multiple_assets' or other asset-related tools beyond the verb 'move'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing asset IDs and folder ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot move assets across spaces), or sibling tools like 'bulk_restore_assets' for different operations. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.